HEALTH

GP Out-of-hours Services

John Hutton: The Government's response to the Health Committee's fifth report of Session 2003–04 on GP out-of-hours services, Cm 6352, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

NHS Foundation Trusts

John Hutton: We announced on 7 September 2004, Official Report, columns 102–03WS, that Monitor (whose statutory name is the independent regulator of NHS foundation trusts) would handle the 20 applicants for NHS foundation trust status in wave 1A as two groups, with target dates for authorisation being 1 November 2004 and 1 February 2005.
	Monitor has revised the target dates to 1 January 2005 (previously 1 November 2004) and 1 April 2005 (previously 1 February 2005).
	Details of the two groups are as follows:
	1 January 2005
	Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust
	Burton Hospitals NHS Trust
	Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospitals NHS Trust
	Gateshead Health NHS Trust
	Harrogate Healthcare NHS Trust
	Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust
	Southend Hospital NHS Trust
	South Tyneside Healthcare NHS Trust
	West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust
	1 April 2005
	Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust
	Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust
	Birmingham Women's Healthcare NHS Trust
	East Somerset NHS Trust
	Frimley Park Hospitals NHS Trust
	Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
	Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust
	Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust
	Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch NHS Trust
	Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Trust
	Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

HOME DEPARTMENT

Firearms Consultative Committee

Caroline Flint: I have today laid before Parliament the twelfth annual report of the Firearms Consultative Committee, copies of which have been placed in the House Library.
	The work of the Committee has already helped to inform the consultation paper we issued in May on future firearms controls and we will be considering their outstanding recommendations alongside other responses.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Disclosure of Court Papers

Harriet Harman: Further to my statement to the House on 24 March 2004, Official Report, columns 885–893, concerning the disclosure of court papers to the Minister for Children, Young People and Families and with the agreement of my hon. Friend the Baroness Ashton and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families I would like to make a further statement as to how the Government propose to change the law in relation to disclosures to and by members of Parliament of information relating to family court proceedings concerning children.
	The Government have concluded that the legislation governing the rules on the disclosure of information relating to family court proceedings concerning children is too restrictive and requires amendment and clarification. The amendments designed to achieve this were tabled to the Children's Bill by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families on 7 October. They will, of course, be considered in proceedings on that Bill in the usual way.
	In developing proposals for changes to the law relating to disclosure of information relating to family court proceedings concerning children, policy development has been based on a primary principle of the welfare of the child, supported by four further considerations, which are:
	providing for the sharing of information between those with a legitimate need for that information;
	the proper functioning of Parliament and the facilitation of the discharge of MPs' and Peers' functions;
	the legitimacy of the law, the match between the law and what actually happens; and
	the proper administration of justice in family law cases.
	The Government's main aim in considering amendments to the law are that the welfare of the child must be the paramount concern. We recognise that parties to family proceedings and others may have a legitimate interest, in limited circumstances, in sharing information. Our broad policy intention is to permit the disclosure of information relating to family proceedings where it is necessary to allow:
	parties to a case to obtain appropriate advice and support;
	MPs and Peers to undertake their official duties and Ministers to exercise their functions;
	statutory agencies, such as the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and Social Services, to obtain access to relevant information for child protection purposes;
	complaints to be made to supervisory bodies and investigations to be carried out;
	statutory bodies to undertake their regulatory and investigative functions; and approved research to be undertaken.
	This list is not exhaustive. Further background is given in the written policy statement which has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses by my hon. Friend the Baroness Ashton and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families which explains the effect of the Government's amendments and sets out the Government's thinking on this issue and their proposed way ahead if the amendments tabled are agreed to by Parliament.
	Briefly, the proposed amendments would do three things. First, they would amend section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 to limit the criminal offence of publication of information which identifies or is likely to identify a child as being involved in family proceedings, or the address or school of such a child, to publications to the public or section of the public. Secondly, section 12(4) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 would be clarified to make it clear that where rules of court specify that certain disclosures can be made, such disclosures would not be a contempt of court. Thirdly, a series of amendments would be made to current rule making powers to clarify that rules can be made specifying the circumstances in which disclosures may be made.
	Hon. Members will recall that I undertook to consult the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—the shadow Attorney-General—on this matter. I have also consulted the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on legal affairs. I have also kept the Speaker and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges informed.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance

Jane Kennedy: In a written statement on 30 March 2004, Official Report, column 88WS, the then Minister of State for Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), announced the publication of a partial regulatory impact assessment (RIA) on a proposal to remove the requirement for ELCI from limited companies that employ only their owner (incorporated owners/sole employees). It is estimated that there are about 300,000 such companies.
	The partial RIA sought the views of employers (in particular incorporated owners/sole traders), insurers and their representative bodies, and other stakeholders (e.g. employees, lawyers) and their representatives, on the proposal.
	I am pleased to announce the publication on 6 October 2004 on the DWP website of the summary of responses to that consultation.
	The majority of respondents to the partial RIA (over 78 per cent.) were in favour of the proposal to remove the requirement for employers' liability compulsory insurance (ELCI) from incorporated owners/sole employees. The majority of business associations, representing large numbers of businesses, were in favour of the change.
	I have arranged for copies of the summary of responses to be placed in the Library.
	Amending regulations will be introduced later this year and will come into force early in 2005.